0
Research Papers

Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells for Retrofitting Postcombustion CO2 Capture in Coal and Natural Gas Power Plants

[+] Author and Article Information
Maurizio Spinelli

Politecnico di Milano,
Via Lambruschini 4,
Milano 20156, Italy
e-mail: maurizio.spinelli@polimi.it

Stefano Campanari

Politecnico di Milano,
Via Lambruschini 4,
Milano 20156, Italy
e-mail: stefano.campanari@polimi.it

Stefano Consonni

Politecnico di Milano,
Via Lambruschini 4,
Milano 20156, Italy
e-mail: stefano.consonni@polimi.it

Matteo C. Romano

Politecnico di Milano,
Via Lambruschini 4,
Milano 20156, Italy
e-mail: matteo.romano@polimi.it

Thomas Kreutz

Princeton Environmental Institute,
Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544
e-mal: kreutz@princeton.edu

Hossein Ghezel-Ayagh

Fuel Cell Energy, Inc.,
3 Great Pasture Road,
Danbury, CT 06813
e-mail: hghezel@fce.com

Stephen Jolly

Fuel Cell Energy, Inc.,
3 Great Pasture Road,
Danbury, CT 06813
e-mail: SJolly@fce.com

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received December 13, 2016; final manuscript received August 28, 2017; published online February 28, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Vittorio Verda.

J. Electrochem. En. Conv. Stor. 15(3), 031001 (Feb 28, 2018) (15 pages) Paper No: JEECS-16-1161; doi: 10.1115/1.4038601 History: Received December 13, 2016; Revised August 28, 2017

The state-of-the-art conventional technology for postcombustion capture of CO2 from fossil-fueled power plants is based on chemical solvents, which requires substantial energy consumption for regeneration. A promising alternative, available in the near future, is the application of molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) for CO2 separation from postcombustion flue gases. Previous studies related to this technology showed both high efficiency and high carbon capture rates, especially when the fuel cell is thermally integrated in the flue gas path of a natural gas-fired combined cycle or an integrated gasification combined cycle plant. This work compares the application of MCFC-based CO2 separation process to pulverized coal fired steam cycles (PCC) and natural gas combined cycles (NGCC) as a “retrofit” to the original power plant. Mass and energy balances are calculated through detailed models for both power plants, with fuel cell behavior simulated using a 0D model calibrated against manufacturers' specifications and based on experimental measurements, specifically carried out to support this study. The resulting analysis includes a comparison of the energy efficiency and CO2 separation efficiency as well as an economic comparison of the cost of CO2 avoided (CCA) under several economic scenarios. The proposed configurations reveal promising performance, exhibiting very competitive efficiency and economic metrics in comparison with conventional CO2 capture technologies. Application as a MCFC retrofit yields a very limited (<3%) decrease in efficiency for both power plants (PCC and NGCC), a strong reduction (>80%) in CO2 emission and a competitive cost for CO2 avoided (25–40 €/ton).

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2007, “ Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan: Ensuring the Fossil Energy Systems Through the Successful Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, accessed Dec. 23, 2017, http://cepac.cheme.cmu.edu/pasi2008/slides/siirola/library/reading/2007Roadmap.pdf
International Energy Agency, 2008, “ CO2 Capture and Storage—A Key Carbon Abatement Option,” International Energy Agency, Paris, France, accessed Dec. 23, 2017, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/co2-capture-and-storage-a-key-carbon-abatement-option_9789264041417-en
Liang, X. , Reiner, D. , and Li, J. , 2011, “ Perceptions of Opinion Leaders Towards CCS Demonstration Projects in China,” Appl. Energy, 88(5), pp. 1873–1885. [CrossRef]
U.S. Department of Energy, 2012, “ Techno-Economic Analysis of CO2 Capture-Ready Coal-Fired Power Plants,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, Technical Report No. NETL/DOE-2012/1581.
Li, M. , Rao, A. D. , and Scott Samuelsen, G. , 2012, “ Performance and Costs of Advanced Sustainable Central Power Plants With CCS and H2 Co-Production,” Appl. Energy, 91(1), pp. 43–50. [CrossRef]
Campanari, S. , 2002, “ Carbon Dioxide Separation From High Temperature Fuel Cell Power Plants,” J. Power Sources, 112(1), pp. 273–289. [CrossRef]
Sugiura, K. , Takei, K. , Tanimoto, K. , and Miyazaki, Y. , 2003, “ The Carbon Dioxide Concentrator by Using MCFC,” J. Power Sources, 118(1), pp. 218–227. [CrossRef]
Amorelli, A. , Wilkinson, M. B., Bedont, P., Capobianco, P., Marcenaro, B., Parodi, F., and Torazza, A., 2004, “ An Experimental Investigation Into the Use of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells to Capture CO2 From Gas Turbine Exhaust Gases,” Energy, 29(9), pp. 1279–1284. [CrossRef]
Chiesa, P. , Campanari, S. , and Manzolini, G. , 2011, “ CO2 Cryogenic Separation From Combined Cycles Integrated With Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 36(16), pp. 10355–10365. [CrossRef]
Campanari, S. , Manzolini, G. , and Chiesa, P. , 2013, “ Using MCFC for High Efficiency CO2 Capture From Natural Gas Combined Cycles: Comparison of Internal and External Reforming,” Appl. Energy, 112, pp. 772–783. [CrossRef]
Campanari, S. , Chiesa, P. , Manzolini, G. , and Bedogni, S. , 2014, “ Economic Analysis of CO2 Capture From Natural Gas Combined Cycles Using Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells,” Appl. Energy, 130, pp. 562–573. [CrossRef]
Spallina, V. , Romano, M. C. , Campanari, S. , and Lozza, G. , “ Application of MCFC in Coal Gasification Plants for High Efficiency CO,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-46274.
Chacartegui, R. , Monje, B. , Sánchez, D. , Becerra, J. A. , and Campanari, S. , 2013, “ Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell: Towards Negative Emissions in Wastewater Treatment CHP Plants,” Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 19, pp. 453–461. [CrossRef]
Carapellucci, R. , Saia, R. , and Giordano, L. , 2014, “ Study of Gas-steam Combined Cycle Power Plants Integrated With MCFC for Carbon Dioxide Capture,” Energy Procedia, 45, pp. 1155–1164. [CrossRef]
Greppi, P. , Bosio, B. , and Arato, E. , 2013, “ Membranes and Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells to Capture CO2 and Increase Energy Production in Natural Gas Power Plants,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 52(26), pp. 8755–8764. [CrossRef]
Franco, F. , Anantharaman, R. , Bolland, O. , Booth, N. , Van Dorst, E. , Ekstrom, C., Sanchez Fernandes, E., Macchi, E., Manzolini, G., Nikolic, D., Pfeffer, A., Prins, M., Rezvani, S., and Robinson, L., 2011, “ European Best Practice Guidelines for Assessment of CO2 Capture Technologies,” Politecnico di Milano, Alstom, London, Project No. D4.9.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2015, “ Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1a: Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity Revision 3,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, Technical Report No. 1723.
Samanta, S. , and Ghosh, S. , 2016, “ A Thermo-Economic Analysis of Repowering of a 250 MW Coal Fired Power Plant Through Integration of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell With Carbon Capture,” Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 51, pp. 48–55. [CrossRef]
Hart D. L. J. , Lehner, F. , and Rose, R. , 2014, “ The Fuel Cell Industry Review 2014,” E4tech, London, accessed Dec. 23, 2017, www.FuelCellIndustryReview.com
Fuel Cell Energy, 2014, “Fuel Cell Energy Communication,” Fuel Cell Energy Inc., Danbury, CT, accessed Dec. 23, 2017, http://www.fuelcellenergy.com
Group Energy Conversion Systems, 2014, “ GS Process Simulation Software,” Group Energy Conversion Systems, Milan, Italy, accessed Dec. 23, 2017, www.gecos.polimi.it/software/gs.php
Bedogni, S. , Campanari, S. , Iora, P. , Montelatici, L. , and Silva, P. , 2007, “ Experimental Analysis and Modeling for a Circular-Planar Type IT-SOFC,” J. Power Sources, 171(2), pp. 617–625. [CrossRef]
Iora, P. , and Campanari, S. , 2012, “ Development of a Three-Dimensional Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Model and Application Hybrid Cycle Simulations,” ASME J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol., 4(4), pp. 501–510.
Campanari, S., Iora, P., Macchi, E., and Silva, P., 2007, “Thermodynamic Analysis of Integrated Molten Carbon Fuel Cell–Gas Turbine Cycles for Sub-MW and Multi-Mw Scale Power Generation,” ASME J. Fuel Cell Sci. Technol., 4(3), pp. 308–316.
Chiesa, P. , and Macchi, E. , 2004, “ A Thermodynamic Analysis of Different Options to Break 60% Electric Efficiency in Combined Cycle Power Plants,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 126(4), pp. 770–785. [CrossRef]
AspenTech, 2013, “ Aspen Plus v8.2,” Aspen Technology, Burlington, MA, accessed Dec. 23, 2017, http://home.aspentech.com/en/products/engineering/aspen-plus
Gas Turbine World, 2009, “ GTW Handbook,” Gas Turbine World, Fairfield, CT.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2011, “ Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants—Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity–Revision 2,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, Technical Report No. DOE/NETL-2010/1397.
Spinelli, M. , Romano, M. C. , Consonni, S. , Campanari, S. , Marchi, M. , and Cinti, G. , 2014, “ Application of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells in Cement Plants for CO2 Capture and Clean Power Generation,” Energy Procedia, 63, pp. 6517–6526. [CrossRef]
Dene, C. , Baker, L. A. , and Keeth, R. J. , 2008, “ FGD Performance Capability,” Power Plant Pollutant Control Mega Symposium, Baltimore, MD, Aug. 25–28, Paper No. 62.
Babcock Power Inc., and Licata, T. , 2006, “ What's New in FGD,” Electric Power Generation Association Meeting, Hershey, PA.
Wind, T. , Güthe, F. , and Syed, K. , 2014, “ Co-Firing of Hydrogen and Natural Gases in Lean Premixed Conventional and Reheat Burners (Alstom GT26),” ASME Paper No. GT2014-25813.
Bonzani, F. , 2008, “ V94.3A Special Application: Fuelling Hydrogen Enriched Natural Gas,” PowerGen, Milan, Italy, June 3–5.
Berkenpas, B. , Frey, C. , Fry, J. , and Rubin, E. S. , 2009, “ Integrated Environmental Control Model,” Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, accessed Dec. 23, 2017, https://www.cmu.edu/epp/iecm/iecm_docpubs.html
U.S. Department of Energy, 2011, “ Analysis of Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell Plant Configurations,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, Technical Report No. DOE/NETL-2011-1482.
National Lime Association, 2007, “ Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization Technology Evaluation—Dry Lime vs. Wet Limestone FGD,” Sargent & Lundy LLC, Chicago, IL, Project No. 11311-001.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Conceptual overview of a MCFC plant separating CO2 downstream a conventional power plant

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Conceptual design for the MCFC retrofit application to capture CO2 in PCC and NGCC power plants. The heat fluxes coming from the MCFC (Q anode/cathode exhausts) and from the GPU (QCO2 compression) are exploited only in the PCC case. In the NGCC case, the only integration between the MCFC and the NGCC sections is associated with the exhaust syngas coming from the GPU and partially sent to the GT.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Layout of MCFC integration downstream the PCC power plant

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Layout of MCFC integration downstream the NGCC power plant

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Logical scheme and general expression for CO2 capture efficiency calculation from the MCFC + PCC plant. In the first passage illustrated below (stage 1), the CO2-rich stream coming from the coal power plant is splitted by the MCFC into a first stream (1−UCO2) emitted at the plant stack and in a second fraction sent to the GPU (UCO2). Once introduced into the GPU, most of the CO2 is sent to storage, depending on the capture efficiency of the purification section (EGPU). The residual fraction (1 − EGPU) is partially recycled to the cathode via the preheating combustor (Fcomb) and partially to the anode (1 − Fcomb). Both these two streams are then splitted again into several fluxes following the same path described above for a sequence of multiple stages (2 − n). Hence, the CO2 capture rate can be calculated by a series of expressions that describe CO2 sent to storage through a proper combination of the coefficients UCO2, EGPU, and Fcomb for all the cyclic passages through the MCFC.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Retrofit investment cost for the assessed PCC and NGCC plants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

COEadd,weighted and cost share for the retrofit power plants (scenarios A and B), related to the MCFC + Reference plant net electric power

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

COEadd,weighted, COEref,weighted, COEtot, and ΔCOE for the retrofit power plants (scenarios A and B), related to the MCFC + Reference plant net electric power

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Logical scheme for COE calculation

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In